History of science: A documentation of the struggle to "accept" reality.

[jeremyjr]

 

The notions that we accept today as "verified" by scientific methods are really amazing and we know that these notions had "evolved" with time.

The very fact that these notions or worldviews had evolved with time implies that they are really not "definitive", they can change as previous notions had changed. These changes can be just small "adjustments" or could be very deep modifications of some of them, in that case we'll have a "revolution" in our world concepts.

The history of science shows that it takes time for some notions to be of general acceptance.

 

All these groundbreaking ideas always found strong resistance from the established social organizations of the time, in modern times Oficial Science is part of that established social organizations and it also had offered resistence to ideas or notions that questions the "accepted" worldviews.

 

Many examples exist of this resistence, usually in the form of superficial dismissal from "recognised" experts, the opinions of these "experts" usually was accepted without any critical analysis for the "scientific community" at large.

 

These are some known examples of that resistance/dismissal to "new" facts or ideas:

 

- "Antoine Lavoisier, the science authority for eighteenth and early nineteenth century Europe and father of modern chemistry, assured his fellow Academicians in 1790, that meteorites could not fall from the sky as there were no stones in the sky (Milton,1996). In spite of first-hand reports of meteors falling from the sky, Lavoisier was believed." (1)

 

- Wilbur and Orville Wright repeatedly demonstrated the flight capability of their invention, the airplane. Despite these demonstrations plus numerous independent affidavits and photographs from local enthusiasts as well, the Wrights' claims were not believed. Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists discredited the Wrights and proclaimed that their mechanism was a hoax. Noted experts from the US Navy and from Johns Hopkins University decried "powered human flight . . .absurd "(1)

 

- I laughed till. . . my sides were sore." -Adam Sedgwick, British geologist in a letter to Darwin in regards to his theory of evolution, 1857.(1)

 

- Of Edison invention of the light bulb this is what an "expert" have to say: Edison's claims are 'so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of electrical machines.'"-Edwin Weston, specialist in arc lighting.(1)

 

- Alfred Wegener. This theory which Wegener developed in 1915, contended that the earth's continents had once been a single mass of land which later drifted apart. Although Wegener carefully cataloged geological evidence, his American and British colleagues ridiculed both him and his idea.(1)

 

- "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (1)

 

And the list can continue for a long while ...

 

This very forum in a very small scale is also a perfect example of how fast are people to dismiss ideas or facts in a very superficial way, even to laugh to some of these ideas or facts, but already Goethe said:

 

"Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable."

 

(1) Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas.

[Mordred]

While most of this post is accurate, the speculation forum doesn't suppress new ideas as per se.

 

The problem is most people that post a speculation have taken very little time understanding the current models.

 

They also cannot answer questions posed to them to demonstrate how their model improves upon current understanding. Nor do they include mathematics for the most part.

 

Here is a good example of a correct approach. In this thread the poster is attempting to refine a more exact mass of the observable universe.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86694-observable-universe-mass/page-2#entry871244

 

His methods are a good example, he listens to suggestions and provides supporting papers and research.

 

you can easily find examples where this isn't the case.

 

New ideas are great, but one needs to demonstrate a solid working knowledge of the mainstream ideas for comparison. Posting ideas and getting the science wrong never works.

 

This site is rare in that it even allows a speculation section. Most physics forums don't allow anything but main stay concordance discussion.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Mordred

[pzkpfw]

Yes, yes, the old "they laughed at [insert name here]" claim.

 

True, but for every scientist who was disbelieved and whose theory was later accepted, there will be plenty of "scientists" whose theories were disbelieved and which remain unbelievable. This is the "they laughed at Bozo the clown" counter-claim.

 

 

Give it up, jeremyjr. Nobody here believes your "anomalies" are proof of plasma beings (or whatever). Trying to turn that into an argument about how nobody believes the revealed truth^TM isn't going to get you anywhere.

[cladking]

The problem is that people have a knee jerk reaction to support the status quo. Whether you believe in ghosts, gods, or science your beliefs are always being reinforced by observation and new learning. You simply will lose track of the reasons and methods for obtaining knowledge. The more fundamental the premises being attacked the greater the amplitude of the jerk. It's not as difficult having your most cherished beliefs shaken as it is having your fundamental definitions, axioms, and premises laid bare.

[Phi for All]

Give it up, jeremyjr. Nobody here believes your "anomalies" are proof of plasma beings (or whatever).

 

We say, "You need to do a better job showing those blurry anomalies aren't something much more mundane", and he hears "We don't like groundbreaking ideas". Confirmation bias runs deep when you base the strength of your idea on emotion rather than reason. This thread is just the stuffing for a great big strawman.

[John Cuthber]

The ideas described in the OP were eventually accepted because the evidence supported them.

A lot of the threads in the speculations forum are not accepted simply because they offer absolutely no evidence.

 

Their authors see this as some sort of censorship.

Everyone else sees it as common sense.

[ajb]

And of course, when good evidence comes to light people can change their opinions. This is more so when the theory behind these claims is also properly understood. One has to be careful with historical quotes and you have to place them in the context they were stated, including when they were stated.

 

Also, it is normal and correct for new ideas to meet some resistance as people look for evidence of these new ideas without just accepting them. That is the nature of science.

Edited June 16, 2015 by ajb

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

You were told not to reintroduce the subject of your anomalies - and threads on your poor treatment at the hands of the cruelly dogmatic scientific establishment have also been locked; do not step into that territory again

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89438-is-education-at-all-levels-fundamentally-flawed/#entry870580

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89175-non-topologically-equivalent-orientable-surfaces-in-r3/page-2#entry870125

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89482-anomalies-spirituality-and-religion/#entry870764

 

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken

 

Oliver Cromwell - 3 August 1650

[swansont]

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

-- Carl Sagan

 

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."

-- Robert Park

[jeremyjr]

I had not mentioned the "taboo" topic but the censors/moderators of this forum had done that for me, thanks for that.

[swansont]

You might note that what changed minds was clear evidence. Also that what you are presenting here are anecdotes — a small number of people whi disagreed, and in some cases, before much evidence had been gathered in support of the theories (e.g. Wegener and Rutherford)

[jeremyjr]

You might note that what changed minds was clear evidence. Also that what you are presenting here are anecdotes — a small number of people whi disagreed, and in some cases, before much evidence had been gathered in support of the theories (e.g. Wegener and Rutherford)

As in many other cases you are wrong, no amount of evidence will "change" the "position" of established authorities in a given field.

The fundamental element many times in the changes of positions on the "community" was really time and that the people making the strongest opposition to the new ideas got old or passed away.

The idyllic view that many people try to give of scientists is far from reality, scientists are humans after all and act exactly like any other human beings, many times abusing their positions to impose their views and opinions. Suppression of new ideas in the scientific community is a well documented occurrence.

[Klaynos]

As in many other cases you are wrong, no amount of evidence will "change" the "position" of established authorities in a given field.

This is trivially falsified by the fact many of the people you listed in the opp penning post were accepted as being correct in their own lifetime but the accumulation of scientific evidence.

 

For the record a wise man one said the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

[StringJunky]

Jeremy, you are not Galileo.

[Strange]

As in many other cases you are wrong, no amount of evidence will "change" the "position" of established authorities in a given field.

 

That's right. That is why science has not changed over the last few hundred years. No one has developed new theories of gravitation or the behaviour of microscopic matter. This is a tragic loss to mankind. Just think of the technologies that would have been possible, if science had been allowed to proceed: personal "computing" devices, a worldwide "internetworked" communication system, "global positioning" by "satellites" in space. All just science fiction because the moderators of this forum ... [That's enough. Ed.]

[swansont]

Suppression of new ideas in the scientific community is a well documented occurrence.

 

Disagreement is not suppression, and neither is a demand for clear evidence. Further, the non-acceptance by an individual or two is not rejection or suppression by the establishment (i.e. your notion of "Official Science").

 

The widespread existence of new ideas in science contradict the tenor of your argument.

[jeremyjr]

Jeremy, you are not Galileo.

I had never claimed that, but many of you are making a good emulation of the Cardinals in Galileo's time. It is really telling that implications like this had been done, some people are unable to see themselves acting like the infamouos cardinals, but that is exactly what they are doing.

 

Intellectual cowardice is very common in scientists and academicians, peer opinions have a strong influence on what could be pursued or not.

Many are terrified of making serious research in taboo topics because that will be synonyms with professional suicide. That is one of the reasons that place a big wall in the way of many "crazy" ideas, there is plenty of cases documenting that.

[Mordred]

I had never claimed that, but many of you are making a good emulation of the Cardinals in Galileo's time. It is really telling that implications like this had been done, some people are unable to see themselves acting like the infamouos cardinals, but that is exactly what they are doing.

 

Intellectual cowardice is very common in scientists and academicians, peer opinions have a strong influence on what could be pursued or not.

Many are terrified of making serious research in taboo topics because that will be synonyms with professional suicide. That is one of the reasons that place a big wall in the way of many "crazy" ideas, there is plenty of cases documenting that.

As mentioned if you can provide supporting evidence this wouldn't be the case.

 

No one is foolish enough to consider ideas that fly in the face of established science simply on someone's say so. Unless that person can supply supporting evidence or at the very least a well thought out mathematic argument/model.

It's not that we have a problem with ideas against the mainstream. The problem is posters can rarely support their ideas. They don't answer questions about their ideas. They ignore evidence against their ideas. In many cases they resort to name calling. Most times though they demonstrate a complete lack in understanding science. They make ridiculous errors and claims. Then refuse to acknowledge they are doing so.

By the way I can think of a few still active threads with ideas that are not mainstay. They don't appear to be active. This is due to the poster listening, taking advise and studying. Those threads have not been locked and are still open for further discussion.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Mordred

[jeremyjr]

 

Even the concept of "evidence" is subject to interpretations many times.

The same "type" of evidence that is regularly used to support many claims and observational facts in established fields could be "denied" validity in other areas where the claims made are a direct challenge to accepted ideas.

The "old guard" will use any "technicality" to reject "evidence" of fundamentally new facts. Their views and positions will be "imposed" because usually they have "control" of the "communication channels" used to spread the new ideas.

But when these new ideas or facts are on "solid" ground no amount of "opposition" from the "old guard" will stop their acceptance. These new ideas or facts when supported by "real" occurences will manifest in multiple ways and the "evidence" supporting them will be coming from multiple independent sources.

It is like when a long lasting open problem in Mathematics gets solved for the first time, many more independent proofs will come later reaffirming the validity of the initial claim.

But when that happens the opposing "old guard" already did its mark in the wrong side of history, that had already happened multiple times and that will happen again and again.

[Strange]

Even the concept of "evidence" is subject to interpretations many times.

 

Citation needed.

 

The same "type" of evidence that is regularly used to support many claims and observational facts in established fields could be "denied" validity in other areas where the claims made are a direct challenge to accepted ideas.

 

Please provide some examples.

 

The "old guard" will use any "technicality" to reject "evidence" of fundamentally new facts. Their views and positions will be "imposed" because usually they have "control" of the "communication channels" used to spread the new ideas.

 

Please provide some evidence of this.

 

But when these new ideas or facts are on "solid" ground no amount of "opposition" from the "old guard" will stop their acceptance. These new ideas or facts when supported by "real" occurences will manifest in multiple ways and the "evidence" supporting them will be coming from multiple independent sources.

 

Yes! You've got it. That is how science works. Well done. This is exactly what makes science so successful. Now you have realised the massive benefits of this approach, perhaps you will stop your self-indulgent winging.

 

It is like when a long lasting open problem in Mathematics gets solved for the first time, many more independent proofs will come later reaffirming the validity of the initial claim.

 

Completely different. Once something is proved in mathematics, then it will always be true.

 

Scientific results are always provisional.

[swansont]

I had never claimed that, but many of you are making a good emulation of the Cardinals in Galileo's time. It is really telling that implications like this had been done, some people are unable to see themselves acting like the infamouos cardinals, but that is exactly what they are doing.

 

Intellectual cowardice is very common in scientists and academicians, peer opinions have a strong influence on what could be pursued or not.

Many are terrified of making serious research in taboo topics because that will be synonyms with professional suicide. That is one of the reasons that place a big wall in the way of many "crazy" ideas, there is plenty of cases documenting that.

 

It's very convenient to chalk up opposition to persecution or similar. It eliminates the need for self-critical examination that maybe the "research" is rubbish.

[jeremyjr]

Citation needed.

 

 

Please provide some examples.

 

 

 

Please provide some evidence of this.

 

 

 

Yes! You've got it. That is how science works. Well done. This is exactly what makes science so successful. Now you have realised the massive benefits of this approach, perhaps you will stop your self-indulgent winging.

 

 

 

Completely different. Once something is proved in mathematics, then it will always be true.

 

Scientific results are always provisional.

You got it wrong again, mathematical "proofs" are subject to reviews, many "proofs" have been found to contain "hidden" assumptions that of course invalidated the given "proof".

 

"The extraordinary success" of "science" could be a myth, we really can not make any inferences from a sample of one. That also could be used and had been used to dismis methods or ideas that at a superficial look may appear to "contradict" scientific principles, that is usually how dogmatism manifest and some of this forum's post are text book example of that.

Edited June 16, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

"The extraordinary success" of "science" could be a myth

 

Yes, really. Your computer doesn't exist and the Internet is powered by unicorns.

 

 

we really can not make any inferences from a sample of one.

 

You have not provided even one example to back up your ludicrous claims of conspiracy.

[cladking]

The "old guard" will use any "technicality" to reject "evidence" of fundamentally new facts.

 

 

 

All evidence is subject to interpretation. We order evidence to create models and then see the world in terms of these models. The models are never the reality itself and the evidence and math are never clean fits to support the models which means no new evidence will perfectly support the model either. The model will simply evolve to better support these new facts.

 

Nobody is really trying to impede progress or prevent observation of the reality, we are all simply a "servant" of what we already think we know. Our "understanding" (modelling) has given us tremendous creature comfort and has seemed to set the universe at our feet so we have no desire to give up hard won progress in any field or belief system. We each would like to build on the system and many make a career of it so we each have a strong tendency to protect the vehicle we're trying to improve. In the modern world one's position in the establishment often hinges on his ability to protect this status quo. Being first to support new ideas is highly risky to your place within the field.

 

But when these new ideas or facts are on "solid" ground no amount of "opposition" from the "old guard" will stop their acceptance. These new ideas or facts when supported by "real" occurences will manifest in multiple ways and the "evidence" supporting them will be coming from multiple independent sources.

 

 

So long as there is real "progress" in the sciences "reality" will always find more ways to assert itself until the establishment is forced to accept it.

 

The problem in so many discussions both virtual and otherwise is that the participants are talking past one another. Naysayers latch onto irrelevancies and though they are proof positive the assertion is wrong. We all seem to be reading from different pages of the same book. Rather than examing premises and seeking agreement we are all trying to present our beliefs as reality itself. Add in confusion, misapprehension, and miscommunication and it's a wonder there is any progress at all.

 

It's a wonder people can't see the wonder of it.

Edited June 16, 2015 by cladking

[Phi for All]

It's like watching a train wreck sometimes. An idea is brought forth (usually asserted rather than posed as a question), some criticism on basic facts or the methodology behind gathered data is the reply, and the person who brought the idea forth completely ignores the reply and immediately jumps to "You're persecuting me because my idea challenges your preconceptions!"

 

It's not about what we think we already know, it's about methodology. You don't allow evidence to support your idea until you're sure the method of its collection was valid. Especially when the idea's conclusions are extraordinary.